Re: [bug-inetutils] some notes on inetutils-1.8

[melodramus]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:41:59 +0300
Sergey Poznyakoff <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> Why do you suppose it should reside in bin? Inetutils installs it (and
> other utils as well) in $prefix/libexec. Use --libexecdir=DIR option
> to direct it some other place.

/bin is the 'traditional' place for it (i know you give a damn on
tradition and good rites!). so i tried to find it where i found the
latter. i never expected it in libexec though because, in a sane world,
there weren't a folder called libexec that contains main bin's. to me
lib-exec is already a sick term. and, the fhs definition of a lib<qual>
folder does _not_ include this usage. and the folder is in the way when
trying to autocomplete to lib/ with tab.

to be more concrete about this: libexec is a sick folder, which is
there now. however, tools park secondary stuff there. for example,
udev parks cdrom_id and stuff there. udevd itself is in sbin. hal
parked things like hald-addon-macbookpro-backlight there but hald is in
sbin. to be continued...

in further other words: re-think your position because it is not
standard conformant (like libexec itself) and does not reflect common
usage. 

thanks for listening!

> > the point is that on *nix it is common to document all entities
> 
> GNU's not UNIX, and therefore its policies differ from those of UNIX.
> One of these differences is about how the proper documentation must
> be organized.

is GNU against *nix? don't treat the elders so badly! and, remember
that GNU leans on *nix and that GNU software is most commonly used on
*nix systems.

in other words: the info system is the info system, and the man system
is the man system. there is no collision between them. so, if you
create bad man pages, or drop some, this is just an individual behaviour
but has nothing to do with GNU policies, i suppose. otherwise this is
another reason against GNU.

> The -? option is quite often used in GNU implementations as a
> shorthand for --help, so there was no "breaking traditions" here.
> Try `tar -?', as an example.

try sed -h and see how nicely a GNU tool can come along with good
rites (which doesn't forbid sed -? in parallel.) why so separatistic???
i don't get the sense of this split. what is wrong with -h that you
discriminate its further use? is good habits and practices, routine and
normality, and all what makes the live of an admin easier (especially
in mixed environments) just worthless to you?

> Regards,
> Sergey

best wisehs,
MeloDramus <address@hidden>